To not find the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" useful

[Middlelanehogger]

My position is that over the course of a 9-month pregnancy, the "thing" inside the womb transforms gradually from a ball of cells with value 0 (on the first day of conception) to a fully-grown baby (in the minutes just before it exits the birth canal).

There are some significant milestones, for me personally somewhere around 12 weeks after the risk of miscarriage dramatically lessens, and somewhere around 24 weeks when the baby is viable, but that doesn't lessen the "gradual" development of the life inside.

I don't have an issue with the current decrim legal framework in the UK. I think it's fine. I think abortion is sad and is taking a life. I think sometimes that's justified. I think even if it's sad, I'd rather the procedure be in the light of day with medical care. I think the closer you get to the end of the pregnancy the more the life inside starts to count in ethical calculations, such that there is an almost smooth transition for the rights of a baby 1h before birth vs 1h afterwards. I think it's similar to killing puppies - it's really sad, sometimes necessary, should be regulated, shouldn't be a free-for-all...

So I don't count as pro-choice or pro-life. But I don't think my position is all that different from a lot of people's.

It really concerns me that people want to push this "pro-choice means as late as necessary for any reason and that's the only feminist position" thing. It will damage our current status quo.

Aibu?

@Isitpaydayyet

Like I said; available to all women, for any reason, at any time. I'm pro-choice without and "but". I prioritise the woman.

@Qazwsxefv Many thanks for clarifying the position on later abortions and rape. I had a sense that our UK law would cover it, but wasn't sure. I completely respect what you say about euthanasia and what a difficult position that puts our doctors in.

YABU to write things like "people want to push this 'pro-choice means as late as necessary for any reason..'
which people? what are you even talking about? i don't know of anyone campaigning (or 'pushing') to change the law to allow abortions any later than what is currently allowed.
In rare cases, it's considered 'necessary' to induce an end to a pregnancy, usually because there's been a severe medical complication and if it's not done, the woman is likely to die. In these cases, it's obviously very sad (for everyone involved - esp the woman) that the foetus won't become a living baby, but in these cases the other option would probably mean the end of the mother's life too.

YANBU to question the terms used. I prefer "pro-choice" and "anti-choice".

Terminating a baby at 8 months pregnant because you couldn't be arsed to have an abortion is IDOL bone IDOL. Hope I've made myself clear!

As clear as mud. Having an abortion because you couldn't be arsed to have an abortion? Can't work that one out. Admittedly, I've got 'Rebel Yell' going round in my head though...

Of course, both sides are trying to win hearts and minds, to a cause that they believe is morally right.

I mean, "life" is such a beautiful word! And "choice" - who doesn't want choices? And throw the word "woman" in, too, assuming that many women will support anything with the word "woman" in it.

That's why you have to be careful with what you read and hear, thinking critically, as well as listening to your heart and conscience.

Terminating a baby at 8 months pregnant because you couldn't be arsed to have an abortion is IDOL bone IDOL. Hope I've made myself clear!

Well, no. Partly because it's "idle". And partly because you just said "having an abortion because you couldn't be bothered to have an abortion", which is nonsense.

I'd also like to see statistics on how often this actually occurs, because I'll bet my favourite Oxford dictionary that it isn't ten a penny.

Statistics define late abortions as over 24 weeks. In 2021 there were 276 (about 0.1%) late term abortion in the UK. These were carried out because the Foetus was severely disabled due to deformation or chromosome abnormalities. Or the woman’s life was at severe risk. No-one in the UK Is getting an abortion at 8 months because they couldn’t be arsed to sort it out earlier.

No-one in the UK Is getting an abortion at 8 months because they couldn’t be arsed to sort it out earlier.

www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/appeal-jail-term-woman-aborted-baby-40-weeks

Jailing a mother of three - WTF www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4826122-jailing-a-mother-of-three-wtf

It's happened and does happen, seemingly. Personally, I'd say one case like this is too many. Not only is is cruel to the fetus and hugely selfish, it gives weight to the idea that abortion really is murder - which hurts us all. It risks our rights.

If they're not doing anything wrong anyway, then however many times it happens is surely irrelevant?

No one is getting a legal abortion I suppose I should say.

I personally wouldn’t have jailed those women.

As nicely as possible OP, no one cares about your opinion. If anyone were to ask (why would they? Who do you hang out with? ) They really aren’t looking for a debate on late term abortions and don’t care how you define your terminology- it is all subjective. We have this ridiculous thread which discusses scenarios which essentially rarely exist. Statistically speaking in 2021 for example, the majority of abortions took place in the early stages of pregnancy: 67% up to and including 7 weeks gestation; 93% up to and including 12 weeks, and 98% up to and including 17 weeks gestation. The stats for over 24 weeks are at 0.1% and are only carried out for medical reasons. How many people do you really think are seeking these out for any other reason? I am sure we could all quote a news story or a suspect mumsnet post, but realistically it is so few it is a waste of breath discussing the morality of it IMO. But enjoy your thread.

@Badbudgeter fantastic work, thanks for doing what I couldn't be arsed to do on not enough sleep 😂

I continue to stand by my point @Isitpaydayyet

'Pro life' is not a neutral term. It's not the media-style-guide term. It's the term anti-abortionists use for themselves because it sounds kind and fluffy and positive.

They aren't pro life. The movement generally doesn't give 2 hoots about the mother's life, or the life of the baby after it's born, or the lifes of other children growing up in poverty or difficult circumstances, or lives cut short by illness, or taken by gun violence, or lost to climate change or war ...

Not pro life, just anti-abortion.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

No baby has ever survived at 22 weeks. 24 weeks is the earliest on record.

It's actually 21 weeks, but it is rare to survive that early, obviously hence it being the record.

This is also why I agree with the 24 week cut off

@NoodlePlanet , @Tryagainplease It may be very rare, but babies born before 24 weeks have survived. The baby referred to in this article was less than 22 weeks. Astonishing, but it's possible.

https://www.uab.edu/news/health/item/12427-uab-hospital-delivers-record-breaking-premature-baby

The thing I don't get about anti-abortionists is the whole "life begins at conception" stance.

If you were to take an anti-abortionist for a pizza and served them raw chicken and blocks of cheese on an uncooked pizza base they wouldn't eat it becuase its not an edible pizza at that point.

So they understand, on a conceptual level at least, that simply combining and arranging ingredients together doesn't make the finished article.

Not sure why they suddenly loose that ability when it comes to foetuses. Well I have an idea, it's because it's about control not about 'life', but until the anti-abortion brigade are honest about that we'll just keep going round in circles.